Japan Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant blog
Tracking Fukushima news from day 1 : | Now one of the world's largest Public Available Repositories of the Chronology of the Daiichi Nuclear ongoing Disaster.
This entire site and content is 100% copyright (for commercial replication), please use the form to submit application for re-use. This site is 100% Educational and all licences in relation to reporting are attended to.

Monday, 27 February 2012

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is far from over, as new reports explains that water samples taken nearly 400 miles off the coast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean are showing radiation levels of up to 1,000 times higher than previous readings. Presenting their findings at the recent Ocean Sciences Meeting in Salt Lake City, Ut., scientists continued to claim these severely elevated radiation levels are not a significant health or environmental threat.

Back in June 2011, a ship carrying scientists traveled off the eastern coast of Japan collecting water samples at distances of roughly 20 miles to 400 miles from the coast. Upon analysis, these samples were found to contain elevated levels of cesium-137 at ten to 1,000 times higher than levels detected before the Fukushima disaster, which is highly alarming.

<snip>
"The government and TEPCO have not reported the total amount of the released radioactivity yet," said Kodama, who believes [b]things are far worse than even the recent detection of extremely high radiation levels at the plant.[/b]
According to Dr Kodama, the total amount of radiation released over a period of more than five months from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster is the equivalent to more than 29 "Hiroshima-type atomic bombs" and the amount of uranium released "is equivalent to 20" Hiroshima bombs.
When on August 2nd readings of 10,000 millisieverts (10 sieverts) of radioactivity per hour were detected at the plant, Japan's science ministry said that level of dose is fatal to humans, and is enough radiation to kill a person within one to two weeks after the exposure.
[this is why we see near no-one at the plant working]
Doctors in Japan are already treating patients suffering health effects they attribute to radiation from the ongoing nuclear disaster.
Junichi Sato, Greenpeace Japan Executive Director, said: "It is utterly outrageous to raise the exposure levels for children to twenty times the maximum limit for adults."
Kodama is an expert in internal exposure to radiation, and is concerned that the government has not implemented a strong response geared towards measuring radioactivity in food.
"Although three months have passed since the accident already, why have even such simple things have not been done yet?" he said. "I get very angry and fly into a rage."
<end snip>
you'd be blind to the truth if you don't read the whole article.....http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html
Fek!

The top of Number Three reactor building at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant this weekAFP

TOKYO —

The government on Friday said some areas surrounding the Fukushima nuclear power plant that was wrecked last year by a massive tsunami will likely remain permanently unlivable.
Measurements taken between November and January confirm earlier results which show a level of radioactivity of 470 millisierverts per year when the average, under normal conditions, is less than one per year, according to a government report released Friday.
Some of the highest readings were taken in the town of Futaba, to the northwest of the plant wrecked on March 11.

Bioaccumulation: Why Fukushima Matters

What
is Bioaccumulation?

Simply
Stated - All
living organisms are connected to each other through a food chain. It takes
more organisms in the beginning of a food chain to support a smaller number of
organisms at the end of the chain. Where bioaccumulation refers to how
pollutants enter a food chain; biomagnification refers to the tendency of
pollutants to concentrate as they move from one trophic level to the next, up
the “food chain.”

Iori Mochizuki was born in 1983, in the city of Yokohama, in the Japan. Single child of a family of entrepreneurs, it is placed in a Buddhist Manger before joining Mutsukawa nishi Catholic Elementary School. This confrontation with two types of religious teachings participates in the formation of his critical spirit. Iori Mochizuki is defined as non-religious, although he practised meditation and regularly make reference to the property and the mal1. The death of his grandmother by morphine overdose strengthens its suspicion towards any form of authority, be it medical, religious or political. At the age of 11, he joined Seiko2 College, where he pursued all of high school. He has then continued with studies in accounting at the National University of Yokohama3. In 2006, he was recruited by Sharp Corporation. But, the following year, he joined the company of his father where he held a position of civil engineer. March 11, 2011, he is in his Office when the largest earthquake in the history of the Japan, with a magnitude of 9.04.

After March 11, 2011, the birth of the citizen journalist [edit]

Back home, Iori Mochizuki learns that a tsunami struck the Pacific coast of the Tōhoku region, causing serious damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power. Later in the day, Prime Minister Naoto Kan said the nuclear emergency. While the Japanese Government is reassuring, Iori Mochizuki seeks to learn more about the situation. After several explosions occurred at the plant, he begins to distrust of official information and starts a real computer watch. In his research, he persuaded that traditional media does not properly cover the situation. He also becomes aware of the importance of the nuclear lobby in the Japan and around the world. For Iori Mochizuki, the International Atomic Energy Agency and most of the pro-nucléaires Governments have implemented a true work of disinformation to hide the effects of radioactivity on the 5.

The journal of Iori Mochizuki on Dianuke [edit]

Therefore, Iori Mochizuki begins in a fight for the information, using social networks to spread the information that he considers most important. It essentially uses its Facebook6 and Twitter7 accounts to spread information and to express his anger at what he sees as a media blackout. It is on Facebook that the quality of his posts is noticed by the administrator of the Indian anti-nuclear site Dianuke8. It then offers him to reissue the result of his research as a compilation. Iori Mochizuki takes this opportunity to propose the drafting of real articles to Dianuke.org. The first note of Iori Mochizuki is published on 26 July 20119. Baptized Fukushima Diary, the journal of Iori Mochizuki on Dianuke takes the form of a daily ticket, in which the author takes over and analysis the most important information of the day. The tone very critical, desperate, but also humorous of Iori Mochizuki is success. Here again, social networks amply participated in disseminating these tickets.

Fukushima Diary, Iori Mochizuki blog [edit]

Just after the publication of the first notes of Iori Mochizuki, Dianuke.org meets serious problems. The site is offlined three times by its host, due to too heavy internet traffic. To support Dianuke and Iori Mochizuki, the articles are listed on countless sites and blogs, including the site of the foundation of Helen Caldicott10. Very quickly, a biologist and webmaster American creates a mirror site, to save all the tickets of Iori Mochizuki. In tribute to the first article of Iori Mochizuki, the site is named Fukushima Diary11. July 31, 2011, Iori Mochizuki publishes his daily tickets on fukushima – diary .com at the same time as dianuke.org. From September 19, Iori Mochizuki is dedicated only to fukushima – diary .com. The form of publications is changing gradually. Quot tickets

Experts estimate the radiation leaked from Fukushima nuclear plant will exceed that of Chernobyl.

At least one billion becquerels of radiation continue to leak from
Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant each day even though it is now more than
five months after the March earthquake and tsunami that damaged the
facility.

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Tepco Injects Boric Acid Into Reactor

Tokyo Electric Power Co. via Bloomberg

A handout photograph shows the Unit 2 reactor building at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (Tepco) Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. injected boric acid into a reactor at its crippled Fukushima nuclear plant to prevent an accidental chain reaction known as re-criticality after temperatures rose in the past week.
The temperature of the No. 2 reactor was 70.1 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) as of 6 a.m. today, according to preliminary data, Akitsuka Kobayashi, a spokesman for the utility, said by phone. The reading fell from 72.2 degrees at 5 a.m. this morning, and is below the 93 degrees that’s used to define a cold shutdown, or safe state, of the reactor......

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation

Board on Radiation Effects Research

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESSWashington, D.C.

…..

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS500 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, DC20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Environmental Protection Agency Grant #X-826842-01, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grant #NRC-04-98-061, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology Grant #60NANB5D1003. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

University of Washington and FredHutchinsonCancerResearchCenter, Seattle, WA

WILLIAM C. DEWEY,

University of California, San Francisco, CA

ETHEL S. GILBERT,

National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD

ALBRECHT M. KELLERER,

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Germany

DANIEL KREWSKI,

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

TOMAS R. LINDAHL,

Cancer Research UK London Research Institute, United Kingdom

KATHERINE E. ROWAN,

GeorgeMasonUniversity, Fairfax, VA

K. SANKARANARAYANAN,

LeidenUniversity Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands

DANIEL W. SCHAFER,

OregonStateUniversity, Corvallis, OR (from May 2002)

LEONARD A. STEFANSKI,

North CarolinaStateUniversity, Raleigh, NC (through May 2002)

ROBERT L. ULLRICH,

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

CONSULTANTS

JOHN D. BOICE, JR.,

International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD

KIYOHIKO MABUCHI,

National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD

…..

This is the seventh in a series of reports from the National Research Council (NRC) prepared to advise the U.S. government on the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and human health. In 1996 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was requested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a scoping study preparatory to a new review of the health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiations. The main purpose of the new review would be to update the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation V (BEIR V) report (NRC 1990), using new information from epidemiologic and experimental research that has accumulated during the 14 years since the 1990 review. Analysis of those data would help to determine how regulatory bodies should best characterize risks at the doses and dose rates experienced by radiation workers and members of the general public

…..

With respect to modeling, the committee will (1) develop appropriate risk models for all cancer sites and other outcomes for which there are adequate data to support a quantitative estimate of risk, including benign disease and genetic effects; (2) provide examples of specific risk calculations based on the models and explain the appropriate use of the risk models; (3) describe and define the limitations and uncertainties of the risk models and their results; (4) discuss the role and effect of modifying factors, including host (such as individual susceptibility and variability, age, and sex), environment (such as altitude and ultraviolet radiation), and life-style (such as smoking history and alcohol consumption) factors; and (5) identify critical gaps in knowledge that should be filled by future research.

…..

Ionizing radiation can consist of electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays or gamma rays (γ-rays), or of subatomic particles, such as protons, neutrons, and α-particles. X- and γ-rays are said to be sparsely ionizing, because they produce fast electrons, which cause only a few dozen ionizations when they traverse a cell. Because the rate of energy transfer is called linear energy transfer (LET), they are also termed low-LET radiation; low-LET radiations are the subject of this report. In contrast, the heavier particles are termed high-LET radiations because they transfer more energy per unit length as they traverse the cell.

Since the high-LET radiations are capable of causing more damage per unit absorbed dose, a weighted quantity, equivalent dose, or its average over all organs, effective dose, is used for radiation protection purposes. For low-LET radiation, equivalent dose equals absorbed dose. For high-LET radiation—such as neutrons, α-particles, or heavier ion particles—equivalent dose or effective dose equals the absorbed dose multiplied by a factor, the quality factor or the radiation weighting factor (see Glossary), to account for their increased effectiveness. Since the weighting factor for radiation quality is dimensionless, the unit of equivalent dose is also joules per kilogram. However, to avoid confusion between the two dose quantities, the special name sievert (Sv) has been introduced for use with equivalent dose and effective dose.

NOTE: Equivalent dose equals absorbed dose times Q (quality factor). Gray is the special name of the unit (J/kg) to be used with absorbed dose; sievert is the special name of the unit (J/kg) to be used with equivalent dose.

aInternational Units are designated SI.

…..

The health effects of low levels of ionizing radiation are important to understand. Ionizing radiation—the sort found in X-rays or gamma rays1—is defined as radiation that has sufficient energy to displace electrons from molecules. Free electrons, in turn, can damage human cells. One challenge to understanding the health effects of radiation is that there is no general property that makes the effects of man-made radiation different from those of naturally occurring radiation. Still another difficulty is that of distinguishing cancers that occur because of radiation exposure from cancers that occur due to other causes. These facts are just some of the many that make it difficult to characterize the effects of ionizing radiation at low levels.

…

Because ionizing radiation is a threat to health, it has been studied extensively. This report is the seventh in a series of publications from the National Academies concerning radiation health effects, referred to as the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) reports

….

HOW IONIZING RADIATION WAS DISCOVERED

Low levels of ionizing radiation cannot be seen or felt, so the fact that people are constantly exposed to radiation is not usually apparent. Scientists began to detect the presence of ionizing radiation in the 1890s.

….

HOW IONIZING RADIATION IS DETECTED

The detection of ionizing radiation has greatly improved since the days of Roentgen, Becquerel, and the Curies. Ionizations can be detected accurately by Geiger counters and other devices. Because the efficiency of the detector is known, one can determine not only the location of the radiation, but also the amount of radiation present. Other, more sophisticated detectors can evaluate the “signature” energy spectrum of some radiations and thus identify the type of radiation.

……

WHAT IS MEANT BY LOW DOSES OF IONIZING RADIATION

For this report, the committee has defined low dose as doses in the range of near zero up to about 100 mSv (0.1 Sv) of low-LET radiation.

…

EXPOSURE FROM NATURAL BACKGROUND RADIATION

Human beings are exposed to natural background radiation every day from the ground, building materials, air, food, the universe, and even elements in their own bodies. In the United States, the majority of exposure to background ionizing radiation comes from exposure to radon gas and its decay products. Radon is a colorless, odorless gas that emanates from the earth and, along with its decay products, emits a mixture of high- and low-LET radiation. Radon can be hazardous when accumulated in underground areas such as poorly ventilated basements. The National Research Council 1999 report, Health Effects of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI), reported on the health effects of radon, and therefore those health effects are not discussed in this report. Average annual exposures worldwide to natural radiation sources (both high and low LET) would generally be expected to be in the range of 1–10 mSv, with 2.4 mSv being the present estimate of the central value

…

After radon, the next highest percentage of natural ionizing radiation exposure comes from cosmic rays, followed by terrestrial sources, and “internal” emissions. Cosmic rays are particles that travel through the universe. The Sun is a source of some of these particles. Other particles come from exploding stars called supernovas.

…

Working near Ionizing Radiation

People who work at medical facilities, in mining or milling, or with nuclear weapons are required to take steps to protect themselves from occupational exposures to radiation. The maximum amount of radiation that workers are allowed to receive in connection with their occupations is regulated. In general these limits are 50 mSv per year to the whole body, with larger amounts allowed to the extremities. The exposure limits for a pregnant worker, once pregnancy is declared, are more stringent. In practice the guidelines call for limiting exposures to as low as is reasonably achievable.

[the current levels in japan are 100 mSv for all all people] CP

…..

Excess cancers represent the number of cancers above the levels expected in the population. In the case of in utero exposure (exposure of the fetus during pregnancy), excess cancers can be detected at doses as low as 10 mSv

…

…

Health Effects Other Than Cancer

In addition to cancer, radiation exposure has been demonstrated to increase the risk of other diseases, particularly cardiovascular disease

…

Estimating Risks to Children of Parents Exposed to Ionizing Radiation

Naturally occurring genetic (i.e., hereditary) diseases contribute substantially to illness and death in human populations. These diseases arise as a result of alterations (mutations) occurring in the genetic material (DNA) contained in the germ cells (sperm and ova) and are heritable (i.e., can be transmitted to offspring and subsequent generations). Among the diseases are those that show simple predictable patterns of inheritance (which are rare), such as cystic fibrosis, and those with complex patterns (which are common), such as diabetes mellitus. Diseases in the latter group originate from interactions among multiple genetic and environmental factors.

…

This report, prepared by the National Research Council’s Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), is the seventh in a series that addresses the health effects of exposure of human populations to low-dose, low-LET (linear energy transfer) ionizing radiation. The current report focuses on new information available since the 1990 BEIR V report on low-dose, low-LET health effects.

Ionizing radiation arises from both natural and man-made sources and at very high doses can produce damaging effects in tissues that can be evident within days after exposure. At the low-dose exposures that are the focus of this report, so-called late effects, such as cancer, are produced many years after the initial exposure.

…

EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY

There is an intimate relationship between responses to DNA damage, the appearance of gene or chromosomal mutations, and multistage cancer development. Molecular and cytogenetic studies of radiation-associated animal cancers and more limited human data are consistent with the induction of a multistage process of cancer development. This process does not appear to differ from that which applies to spontaneous cancer or to cancers associated with exposure to other carcinogens.

…

A cytogenetic-molecular data set is available on papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) (Bongarzone and others 1997) arising in excess in 131I-exposed children in areas contaminated by the Chernobyl accident (UNSCEAR 2000a). These mechanistic studies were guided by the knowledge that chromosomally mediated rearrangement and activation of the ret proto-oncogene is a frequently early arising feature of PTC (Richter and others 1999).

…

Mouse Lymphoma and Leukemia

Early studies with radiation-induced thymic lymphoma provided evidence of recurrent RAS gene activation and some indication that the RAS gene mutational spectra differs between X-ray and neutron-induced lymphoma (Sloan and others 1990). Other molecular studies include the finding of recurrent chromosome (chr) 4 deletions in thymic and nonthymic lymphomas (Melendez and others 1999; Kominami and others 2002) and T-cell receptor (Tcr) gene rearrangements and chromosomal events in thymic lymphoma. However, the above and other somatic mutations in mouse lymphoma have yet to be specifically associated with initial radiation damage.

The situation in mouse acute myeloid leukemia (AML; Silver and others 1999) is clearer. AML-associated, region-specific deletion of chr2 has been shown by cytogenetic analysis of in vivo irradiated bone marrow cell populations to be a direct consequence of radiation damage

….

<end of snip>

To sum…. TEPCO propose there is no-evidence that low dose radiation will harm you, and no studies have been done….